About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
MSNBC 9
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 47
Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)
is to the left of the obama administration's foreign policy agenda. was on the fringe of the senate. you are talking about a person whose voting record shows softness on iran and and antagonism on israel beyond belief. the fact that they wanted to cloture vote thursday was unreasonable. we voted senator kerry out in the same day because there was no don't veronica moser i have. controversy. we offered to hold the vote until after the break. that wasn't good enough. they wanted to force this issue. so i'm glad that we have got more time to look and i'm glad he answered my question about a very disturbing comment he allegedly made. so i think we doing our job to scrutinize i think one of the most unqualified radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time. >> chris: well, let me ask you a question about that. if he is so radical and unqualified if you get the information you are seeking on him and on benghazi and we will get to that in a moment, why wouldn't you still continue to try to block him? >> well, because i do believe the president has great deference. can we do bette
of the obama administration's foreign policy agenda. on the fringe of the senate. you are talking about a person whose voting record shows softness on iran and antagonism toward israel beyond belief. he'd be the most antagonistic senator toward the state of israel in history, so the fact that we reported in -- tuesday, wanted a cloture vote thursday was unreasonable and we voted senator kerry on the same day because there was no controversy and offer to the white house to hold the vote until after the break, and, if nothing new came out we'd vote for cloture, senator john mccain and myself, but that wasn't good enough and they wanted to force the issue so i'm glad that we have got more time to look and i'm glad he answered my question, about a very disturbing comment he allegedly made. so i think we're doing our job to scrutinize, i think, one of the most unqualified, radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time. >> chris: well, let me ask you a question about that. if he is so radical and unqualified, if you get the information you are seeking on him, and on benghazi, w
, had choice words for the president's foreign policy team. i'm not sure i agree with that. in "the new york times," a great must-read, quietly killing a consumer watchdog. it's how the republicans are just doing everything they can not to have the consumer financial protection bureau that was created by elizabeth warren under president obama actually function because it would keep them, quite frankly, from being able to get their money from all their donors on wall street. and they do not want to lose the people who helped them out. so they want to make sure that the consumer suffers so that they can gain politically. it's a good one. take a look at it. coming up -- >> we're also going to talk about nancy pelosi saying we don't have a spending problem, and the problem with medicare is not medicare. we've got a lot to talk about straight ahead. >> gail collins of "the new york times" joins us straight ahead. >> she's got a great column. >> i love it. you're watching "morning joe" brewed by starbucks. humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely,
and patriotism and service. my focus is entirely on his long-standing foreign policy record, and his opposition to sanctions to any form of direct action dealing with those who would cause harm. and so in no way, shape, or form have i impugned his pages is the i focus on his foreign policy record which even the "washington post" describes as the french. cycling the senator from florida suggested that i stated that mr. hagel has not been truthful. to the contrary, my point is exactly the opposite. that the question this committee asked whether he has director received money from foreign sources enables him to answer that truthfully, no, while at the same time not disclosing whether the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received has come indirectly from foreign sources. his answers could be entirely truthful and yet the example i use of course, that money, that 200,000 could have come from a foreign nation, and he could answer that truthfully, no, i haven't received it but it came from an intermediary. and my point is not that he has lied. it is rather that he has refused to answer reasonab
the administration and crank can do together. yes, there will be things about foreign policies, gun control infrastructure clean energy. but the white house has gone far and beyond than in previous speeches where the president is going to be speaking directly to the american people without the filter of washington reporters and pundits. secondly the white house has been talking a lot about making republicans own the cuts in spending, the sequester. when you hear the white house say repeatedly, a lot of speech is going to be focused on the economy, and the president is going to argue that $85 billion in spending cuts could wreck the economy, and it's the republicans' responsibility to help avoid that. this comes across as a much more partisan speech. a lot of people were anticipating just a few weeks ago. >> michael: let's talk about the partisanship of the speech. we heard that inauguration speech. how do you think--that was partisan in a lot of people's minds. i didn't see it as partisan. i sort of saw it as progressive and forward-thinking. but when you think about what the president is g
the arab spring. what are you listening for tonight when it comes to foreign policy? >> well, in foreign policy i think the point jake has made and broken is probably the most important one. i doubt very much you'll hear much about north korea. there will be a condemnation, i imagine. we've been through this, watched this dance before. new leader comes into north korea, needs to show his stuff, needs to consolidate the -- his support with the military, which is the backbone of the military dictatorship, so they do something provocative like this. everyone condemns it. chinese will condemn it but they're the only country who can do anything about it because north korea's the most isolated country in the world and china doesn't want it to collapse. though china provides it with energy and food, it's not going to do anything. so obama doesn't have much actionable he could talk about. with regard to iran, they feel as though they've got the pressure on iran. they are watching to see what happens. and i don't think there's going to be much percentage in talking a great deal about situations t
political thought when it comes to foreign policy. i think that's fair too. so i think that's what the senate is supposed to do. they're supposed to advise and consent. i think john mccain is doing it exactly like he should do it. he has problems with it, but he's going to let the president put his person in charge. i thought mccain was very fair there. mark? you take some of the things he said in the past, they're pretty bad, but he circled back. he's talked to lindsey. he's assured some other people that those are not his positions today. >> senator hagel has really big shoes to fill. the president's first two defense secretaries, fantastic. worked well with the hill, worked well with the pentagon. i think senator mccain, unlike some of the other critics that chuck hagel, has focused on the things where there really are questions. >> and by the way, again, i support chuck hagel. but they're very legitimate questions. we have to sort out some of the hyperbolic attacks, which are just shameful, versus responsible concerns. john mccain, i felt, was really responsible yesterday, took
"foreign policy magazine" my position right now is that i want an answer to the question. that question totally unrelated to chuck hagel as defense secretary is what president obama was doing during the benghazi attack. hagel remains in limbo, as does defense secretary leon panetta, who isn't exactly sure when he will be able to return to his california walnut groves. >> this is, i believe, my final press conference here at the pentagon briefing room. there are moments when i thought i was part of the last act of an italian opera. you're not sure exactly when it would end, and when the fat lady would sing. >> for now the only certainty is much more congressional uncertainty. joy, does leon panetta need a shirt that says "i survived a chuck hagel filibuster and all i got was this lousy t-shirt?" just when he thinks it can't get worse, it's actually seemingly gotten worse. >> this is insane. i mean, last night i went through, and i was looking at the george w. bush cabinet nominations. none of which were filibustered. just for fun. just because i knew we were talking about it. his second
of incredibly paranoid mccarthyite apocalyptic view of american foreign policy among some of the characters in the house -- >> doesn't that make the case for why harry should have done, this because of the ted cruzes of the world and the tea parties of the world? they're trying to stop absolutely everything. i do kind of blame harry right now. he had a chance to fix this. david, your thoughts. >> you know, i think that harry reid made a call that the democrats may end up the minority position in the years ahead and he doesn't want to totally get rid of the filibuster. you can blame him, but really you've got to look at the people who are leading this phony charge. and we have to -- the way they're sort of burdening the senate now, so if you don't like what the administration did on benghazi, which is not really a department of defense issue, then you penalize the department of defense by not letting a transition proceed there when we're fighting a war overseas. and you have people like lindsey graham and john mccain who claim to be patriots who care about the pentagon and claim to care abou
. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot >> warner: on sunday, republican senator lindsey graham said he would put a hold on hagel and on john brennas nonati as c.i.a. director, until he gets more answers from the white house about the september attack in benghazi, libya. in a statement today, white house spokesman josh earnest reaffirmed president obama's support for hagel. and said: late today, reid forced a vote on breaking the fillibuster. the current defense secretary leon panetta who'd been due to leave his post today has said he will stay on until his successor is confirmed. and, at a ceremony honoring for and late today the president said it was unfortunate to have politics intrude while he's still presiding over a war in afghanistan. to help us understand the implications, the politics and what's next, we turn to pentagon reporter mark thompson of "time" magazine. and todd z
administration. it was very nice of him to bring up foreign policy, because in fact he has not been transparent at all about his drone war or his kill list or any of the other things that have to be leaked for us to find out about. we still don't know what he was doing the night of the attack in benghazi. not just the night of the attack in benghazi but also the night on the attack on the cairo embassy and other embassies in the middle east. if he is transparent, you know, this is sort of basic information that he should provide. >> bret: so you agree that for these senators to say hey, we need this information, it's okay for them to hold up even national security cabinet position for some time to get it. >> the president should be given extreme deference in appointing his members of his cabinet. the way john bolton was treated was terrible. i said that at the time. i think there has to be a real reason. in this situation, i think he will be confirmed but it is sad that lindsey graham has the hold up a nomination to find out where the president was the night of the terrorist attack. i mean some
-interventionist policy. doesn't like to get too deeply involved into the foreign policies of other countries. it doesn't want too many more sanctions on north korea, as north korea has already sort of sanctioned out, for fear that north korea could collapse into anarchy and you'd have refugees flowing over the border. so, yes, this is a challenge for the neighbors. but this is really a message for the united states. you remember last year, north korea tried to launch a satellite into space, and i was in north korea at the time. it went up for about 90 seconds and then blew up. everyone knew at the time, including intelligence officials, that north korea would try again, and that once they got a successful missile launch, they would probably have a nuclear test. because combined, it's very powerful. now, u.s. intelligence officials have told me that north korea right now has probably a dozen to, at the most, several dozen weapons-deliverable nuclear devices. this is a serious challenge for the obama administration. something he's going to have to address tonight. >> and we are told he will talk about t
of things going on in terms of the president's foreign policy, particularly in the middle east and withdraw in afghanistan coming to the fore and you need someone in the pentagon doing this. it can be seen as a nuisance in that the president want to be talking about his agenda, which is the gun control, immigration, things that people can get done. you have, of course, this sequester and the ongoing issue of the spending situation and taxes. so i think these are the things that the president wants to be talking about. he's going to be on the road talking about gun control. so the question is, will he have to be talking about this to put the pressure on republicans to get moving on his appointees. >> i want to bring in congresswoman karen bass. >> good morning. >> what do you think the republican motivation is for delaying the nomination? >> i think senator mcclain was perfectly clear when he said that they are still mad when senator hagel gave testimony and was negative towards president bush. i think this is a vendetta. i think this is a holdover from the past and it's making the united st
business is our business. adt. always there. jenna: welcome back, everyone. it's a foreign policy flashback if you will with new concerns today over iran and north korea, two countries singled out by president george w. bush nor than a decade ago during his state of the union address. remember this? >> north korea has a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror while an unelected few reexpress the iranian's people's' hope for freedom. iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward america and support terror. states like these and these terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. jenna: well two charter members of the axis of evil iran and north korea both in the spotlight at this year's state of the union. take a listen. >> our challenges don't end with al-qaida. america will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world's most dangerous weapons. the regime in north korea must know they will only achieve security and prosperity
of the israeli foreign ministry and that he thinks israel has an undue influence on the foreign policy. hagel said i never said and i do i want believe it we'll see. to graham is that enough. he said let's make sure it is true. if it turned out it is not true and he could be in serious trouble and they want more information. if i had to beat, i beat more chance than not he will get through. but in the panel, we talked to bob woodword and he said some democratics are uneasy with the hagel nomination and in this week, he compared to water gate twist negligent wind that maybe democratics may go to the white house and pressure them to drop hagel, we'll see. >> there are two tracts, objection toz hagel himself and record in the past and using it as leverage to git more've - get more information about bengazi. you think bengazi is it answered it would help approximate hagel to sail through or the delay in time will bring up more time to dig up more things about him? >> state your namely some people who oppose hagel and try to dig up more information on him. failing that even if they don't get the a
was dismissive, on climate change, which was dismissive. i think there were two sentences on foreign policy. i think you have to say more about the position of the united states and the world. >> the middle east is in flames right now. you should probably talk about it. >> you have to be self-aware. and i think of chris christie, who i believe, unless i remember incorrectly, turned it down. >> he's a smart man, chris christie, and he's in the 70s. >> he turned this one down? >> not this one. >> i have a question that perhaps john heilemann can answer. marco rubio's a smart guy, an attractive guy, an articulate guy with a terrific life story. why is it that in an age in the past few months when the republicans have been talking about broadening the base of the party, speaking to a larger audience, why is it that he spent so much time last night seemingly preaching to the choir rather than talking to the country? >> that's a good point. >> well, you know, mike, i think he points out the awkward intraparty politics that the republicans now face. you know, you have a party that does need to broade
the answer, i don't know. i don't develop the programs, i don't develop policy, i don't do foreign policy or military policy or military objectives. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, then we see how well it's done and if there are problems, we make recommendations. going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion per year. just paying for the afghan national security force is over $4 billion. then all the other programs. the problem is there's a delta between what the afghans collect and it cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, the cost of maintaining order. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it is conditioned. the caller and others have some concerns about how well that is being spent. that is the value. a lot of discussion came out of the tokyo accords about the international community will not walk, but they're trying to put conditions on the ability of the afghan government to govern and t
stare industrial complex and how it hurts our country to have those people trying to do our foreign policy. the next thing i wanted to say was the reason rubio's thing on the t.v. there went so viral and everybody watched it 1,000 times is because he acted like he was shoplifting the water from a convenience store. [ laughter ] stephanie: he did. i said it looked like winona ryder on the security camera the. hmm? total deer in the headlights. >> he was in part talking about how the c.i.a., against his wishes sent up another u.2 flight because he kruschev were to meet. the c.i. asacriad it up. stephanie: historical fun fact. and the fact i learned from that, the largest percentage of people that want to date me and kiss me, really straight, old drunk men. >> sure. stephanie: story of my life. >> if he was 40 years younger that would make him 90. stephanie: greg writes steph. >> if i was 40 years younger i'd remember where i left my cheese. >> i want to make sure you waited for me when i got back from the peliponesian war. the senate is waiting because they don't have all of hagel's f
military and deals heavily with our foreign policy, you need someone that can get the trust of the u.s. senate. if you've had someone that's broken a lot of personal connections and has really upset, anger and inflamed a large portion of the u.s. senate, maybe they're not the best choice for the position. >> jimmy, is there anything about this that says, look, this is a weakness on president obama's part? he's unable to get as a second-term president even his cabinet confirmed without this kind of melee. >> no, i think basically its illustrative of where we are in modern politics. i expect these kinds of things from the house. i expect the majority to rule over the minority in the house whether that's democrats or the republicans. that's the way the founding fathers set it up. but the senate was always supposed to be a club of 100, a cozy place. when i worked there, you could have disagreements on the floor. but off the camera, you had staffers, including me, running around, making deals, what do you need? i'll give you this if you give me this. this is what my boss needs. that's how
more. foreign policy, it is 51% to 37%. theresa, nevada. caller: regarding president obama using executive orders to go around the republicans in the house, i am all for it. i am aware that this is a two- party democracy and we need republicans to be reasonable working party, but they have not been. the president has no choice but to go around them. john boehner has walked away. i am frustrated and the country is frustrated, other democrats are frustrated and scared. i am scared of the things they're willing to do to our country. he is doing what he has to do. i am all for his proposals, all for clean energy and comprehensive immigration, i am for gun legislation. i am for all of them. i am center-left, that is progressive. i think the country is definitely going progressive. i do not understand where the republicans want to obstruct and go with their small mindedness and small government proposals that they think that they can push through on the american people that i do not think are very popular. host: we have a different opinion from twitter. host: david wright's in on twitt
" focusing on foreign policies issues ahead on capitol hill. host: and now on your screen is representative elliot engel, democrat of new york and in the 113th congress the ranking member, the top democrat on the foreign affairs committee. representative engel, as always, we appreciate you being on the "washington journal." from that perch in the foreign affairs committee, what's your -- what are some of your issues this year that you'd like to confront? guest: well, obviously the president spoke at the state of the union the other night, talked about winding down the war in afghanistan finally and removing american troops. when the troops are actually all removed, still negotiations between us and the afghanis about what american presence will be afterwards. but that's, i think, something that the american people are tired of and happy to see winding down. we also, of course, have the volatile middle east, where we have the arab spring and egypt and syria, of course, in the throes of a civil war. assad brutally killing his own people. clearly he's going to go. the question is who comes in
in iraq, the decision to help prevent our losing that war when he said was the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since vietnam. it's quite obvious now that that statement was his tree i don't know nick, woe -- was histrionic, woefully uninformed and absurd. i didn't raise it at senator hagel's hearing for an i told you so moment but to determine he if senator hagel recognizes he was in error. and more importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today. i wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes. unfortunately, i'm not confident that he has. after two weeks of reviewing his record, my concerns about whether senator hagel is ready to serve as secretary of defense have not diminished. nothing in senator hagel's background indicates that he would effectively manage the department of defense. in today's unprecedented environment of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the department of defense do not adversely impact our military readiness is enormously challenging. it requires that the secretar
certainly want better trade policies. i want more support and subsidies for american manufacturers rather than for foreign manufacturers but you can make sure the federal government is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars and using them to buy for from americans rather than foreign companies. host: 1 last tweet -- guest: you will never stop everyone from buying an illegal gun. that is always the case with laws we pass. if you want laws the one that% air tight, we should not pass anything. we're trying to cut down on the number of illegal sales oe
Search Results 0 to 46 of about 47 (some duplicates have been removed)